Have reusability reduced cost of deploying loads to space for real or is it just creative accounting?I have my doubts since:a) the primary goal of American space program at the moment was/is deployment of Starlink which is invaluable for American and NATO defense needs,b) because it had to work at any cost, it's more than likely that low market costs of SpaceX launches are simply subsidized by the American taxpayer, it also makes American economy look better than it actually is (especially important since the West has been in silent recession for more than a decade now, jumping from one big tech sham to another to hide it),c) strange desperation to replace Falcon 9 with Starship - if it was so good then why are you so eager to scrap it and replace it with something else - like if there was a fire under your ass?
>>62736376>SpaceX launches are simply subsidized by the American taxpayer,well so was NASA and it's still cheaperask /sci/ though they are autists about this
starship would be a lot better used if it were strictly a heavy payload to orbit deployment system wanting to use it as an interplanetary transport system is retarded considering the amount of times it will need to be refueled in space before every trip
>>62736376Wait until you see the canada/french space program in the next few years rape their taxpayers
>>62736376China's CASC charges a price for Long March 8A that works out to 3600$/kg to low earth orbit. This is about the same price that SpaceX charges for Falcon 9 on a $/kg to LEO basis. Due to having a quasi-monopoly within the ITAR world, SpaceX's has significant pricing power, so its marginal cost is likely significantly less than the price it charges external customers. Falcon 9 is cheap partly due reusability, although Falcon 9 also benefits from large economies of scale.https://m.weibo.cn/detail/5347755150017456
>>62736439ArianeGroup lacks economies of scale. There's not much point in developing a clean slate reusable rocket when you don't expect to have much to launch on it. Either subsidization or banning foreign competition are the only way an independent European launch capability can exist, and subsidization is the chosen method.
>>62736376>I have my doubts since I'm retarded.fixed
>>62736376>strange desperation to replace Falcon 9 with Starship - if it was so good then why are you so eager to scrap it and replace it with something else - like if there was a fire under your ass?SuperHeavy/Starship already costs less than half as much as Falcon9. Economists have estimated that the fully developed SH/S stack will cost $200/kg to LEO.That's cheap enough (and the payload capacity is large enough) that your mom could afford to put herself in orbit.The best part of it is that F9 has already put Russia out of the space launch business, completely destroying Roscosmos. The only payloads Russia gets to launch any more are its own and the contractually obligated ISS ones that that fucking piece of shit Bill Clinton bound us to back in the 1990s when he wanted to "save" Russia's economy by giving Russia a share of the ISS to prevent their space-tech people from going to work for Pakistan.
>>62737177No one knows what the $/kg of Starship will be. Not even SpaceX knows yet. The $/kg depends on how fast they can refurbish and refly, which still involves a great deal of uncertainty, especially regarding the heat shield and engine reliability.There is a huge supply crunch in the launch industry right now. The reason Russia doesn't get foreign launch contracts anymore is due to sanctions.https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/08/theres-a-huge-launch-crunch-right-now-and-it-will-probably-get-worse/
>>62736376no it's real, just sucks if you're not the US.Do yuropoors even make rockets still?
>>62739157of course we doare there even americans involved making spacex?its always a hoot how delusionnal the aveage american trash is, jerking themselves over imported indians and other foreigners
